View Single Post
Old 12-28-17 | 02:06 PM
  #6  
merziac's Avatar
merziac
Senior Member
10 Anniversary
Community Builder
Community Influencer
Active Streak: 30 Days
 
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,898
Likes: 9,277
From: PDX

Bikes: Merz x 5 + Specialized Merz Allez x 2, Strawberry/Newlands/DiNucci/Ti x3, Gordon, Fuso/Moulton x2, Bornstein, Paisley,1958-74 Paramounts x3, 3rensho, 74 Moto TC, 73-78 Raleigh Pro's x5, Marinoni x2, 1960 Cinelli SC, 1980 Bianchi SC, PX-10 X 2

He is talking about 82-83 when Tullio passed, Sinyard was invited to the wake but sent Merz. One might think Shimano chose to strike and ramp up while Campy was preoccupied.


Originally Posted by dddd
I'm thinking that by that time it likely was already apparent to the Campagnolo brass that their own staff capacity for churning out designs and testing was quite far behind what Shimano's staff was capable of.
As such, they would recognize how their budget could go out the window trying just one too many forward-thinking designs, especially if their timetables for such efforts had been somewhat planned out already.
But likely they missed out on sharing efforts with Specialized. Perhaps they didn't trust them enough? After all, Specialized was having their own components design produced which competed with both of their gruppo suppliers and with other component suppliers.


I'm wondering though, just what point in time that Jim Merz might have been referring to?


Post-1983, fuhgettaboutit, Shimano would henceforth be copied as much as would be allowed.


On a related note, I have wondered how so many of Shimano's presumed patented designs have seemingly been used by Campagnolo so few years following their release. And to what extent that Shimano regards Campagnolo as much of a competitor any more, and what "licensing" agreements that they might share. I would think that any such agreements might be kept completely confidential.
merziac is offline  
Reply